ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Hardware counter driven on-the-fly request signatures
Full text FlvFlv (29:00),  Mp3Mp3 (12.24 MB),  PdfPdf (438 KB)
Source
Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems archive
Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems table of contents
Seattle, WA, USA
SESSION: OS table of contents
Pages 189-200  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-59593-958-6
Also published in ...
Authors
Kai Shen  University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Ming Zhong  University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Sandhya Dwarkadas  University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Chuanpeng Li  University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Christopher Stewart  University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Xiao Zhang  University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGARCH: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Architecture
SIGPLAN: ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages
SIGOPS: ACM Special Interest Group on Operating Systems
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): ,   Downloads (12 Months): ,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

appendices and supplements   abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1346281.1346306
What is a DOI?

APPENDICES and SUPPLEMENTS
Supplemental material for Hardware counter driven on-the-fly request signatures


ABSTRACT

Today's processors provide a rich source of statistical informationon application execution through hardware counters. In this paper, we explore the utilization of these statistics as request signaturesin server applications for identifying requests and inferring high-level request properties (e.g., CPU and I/O resource needs). Our key finding is that effective request signatures may be constructed using a small amount of hardware statistics while the request is still in an early stage of its execution. Such on-the-fly request identification and property inference allow guided operating system adaptation at request granularity (e.g., resource-aware request scheduling and on-the-fly request classification). We address the challenges of selecting hardware counter metrics for signature construction and providing necessary operating system support for per-request statistics management. Our implementation in the Linux 2.6.10 kernel suggests that our approach requires low overhead suitable for runtime deployment. Our on-the-fly request resource consumption inference (averaging 7%, 3%, 20%, and 41% prediction errors for four server workloads, TPC-C, TPC-H, J2EE-based RUBiS, and a trace-driven index search, respectively) is much more accurate than the online running-average based prediction (73-82% errors). Its use for resource-aware request scheduling results in a 15-70% response time reduction for three CPU-bound applications. Its use for on-the-fly request classification and anomaly detection exhibits high accuracy for the TPC-H workload with synthetically generated anomalous requests following a typical SQL-injection attack pattern.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
2
 
3
C. Anley. Advanced SQL Injection in SQL Server Applications. Technical report, Next Generation Security Software Ltd., 2002.
 
4
Ask.com Search Engine (formerly Ask Jeeves). http://www.ask.com.
5
 
6
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
11
 
12
13
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
W.G.J. Halfond, J. Viegas, and A. Orso. A Classification of SQL Injection Attacks and Countermeasures. In Int'l Symp. on Secure Software Engineering, Arlington, VA, March 2006.
19
 
20
RUBiS: Rice University Bidding System. http://rubis.objectweb.org.
 
21
L.E. Schrage and L.W. Miller. The Queue M/G/1 with the Shortest Remaining Processing Time Discipline. Operations Research, 14(4):670--684, 1966.
22
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
TPC Benchmark C. http://www.tpc.org/tpcc.
 
27
TPC Benchmark H. http://www.tpc.org/tpch.
28
 
29

Collaborative Colleagues:
Kai Shen: colleagues
Ming Zhong: colleagues
Sandhya Dwarkadas: colleagues
Chuanpeng Li: colleagues
Christopher Stewart: colleagues
Xiao Zhang: colleagues